News:

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!We hope you had a blessed Pascha and Bright Week. The OCNet Forum is operating in “Beta Mode” due to a major systems upgrade. A maintenance window is currently in effect and users should expect downtime starting at 0300 EDT on Friday the 24th of May.

Author
Topic: THE ROCOR-MP CONNECTION (Read 22957 times)

I am new to this List and would like to hear from you all with regard to the upcoming ROCOR SOBOR this coming May 2006 in which the ROCOR Hierarchs will vote whether or not to join with the Moscow Patriarchy.

The issue of the MP being very much involved with the WCC *should* be an issue with the ROCOR hierarchs. But it is not!

Why is it not an issue? Because the ROCOR has already compromised with world orthodoxy in its inter communion with the Serbian Patriarchate since the late 80's.

But the MP goes much further than World Orthodoxy. The MP rubs shoulders and joins in at joint prayer with Protestant groups. That should send up a red flag with the ROCOR hierarchs--but even this does'nt.

The ROCOR wishes to ingore these embarrasing and very real issues - simply because Laurus and his cohorts have been boughy with MP $$$$. (More on next post tomorrow)

I think it is wonderful! If it doesn't happen, I will be very disappointed.

I completely understand and support these feelings.

However, the question is the method of entrance into World Orthodoxy. ROCOR should approach the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople instead of MP. Reasons for it:1. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople has a status of first among equals.2. During last decades several non-Greek jurisdictions joined Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople — Autonomous Orthodox Church of Finland, Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America, American Carpatho-Russian Diocese of America, Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA and Diaspora, Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada, Russian Orthodox Exarchate of Western Europe, and Belarusian Council of Orthodox Churches of North America. Ecumenical Patriarchate followed all previous agreements and demonstrated special respect to all of them. Instead, the union with MP seems problematic due to certain major problems within MP: 1. Corruption.2. Epidemics of pseudo-“elders”3. Violation of human rights in some monasteries and parishes and absence of attention to these facts.4. MP does not follow own promises. When MP granted autocephalous status to OCA (jurisdiction, which I highly and sincerely respect), MP promised to transfer their North American parishes to OCA. That never transpired. Also, MP applies double standards in terms of granting autocephaly to other Local Orthodox Churches.5. Events in Surouzh diocese a couple of years ago, when a huge disrespect to the clergy and laity of the diocese from the side of MP has been demonstrated.Of course, many hierarchs, clergy and laity of MP are completely innocent in terms of these issues. I respect these people. But ROCOR’s new boss will be Alexis II. Why ROCOR would not choose the proven path of others?

I don't think that ROCOR really worries about being in communion with world Orthodoxy. The reason that they are cozying up to the MP is because that is what they believe that they are supposed to do. They have always considered themselves a group that is something of an exile, and will someday reunite with those inside of Russia. That time has not yet come, since the MP is not fully trusted: thus the MP wouldn't rule over them, but only be in communion with them in the near future. I personally do not understanding this: how can you share what is called the most holy body and blood of Christ as brothers, but distrust someone politically and administratively enough to keep your distance? Nonetheless, ROCOR is moving forward at least, hopefully with concelebration and intercommunion (we'll know in about a month). The problem with going straight to the EP--apart from the EP being probably the most active participant in Ecumenism, and also on the new calendar--is that the EP now sees ROCOR as someone who must reconcile with the MP, with the MP being the legit Church body, and ROCOR being the quasi-schismatic (or outright schismatic) red-headed step-child.

Personally, I dissagre with Nathanial. I think the Church Abroad needs to be carefull with the Moscow Patriarch. Yes, it has gotten better, but we must also be wary. Just as it too quite a while for the Arians to dye, so too, will it take for the Communist to die. That said, I also think a reconcilliation between Moscow is a good thing. It can only strengthen the Russian Church. However, people are jumping the gun as if it already happened. There still has to be a council before anything happens. I think Met. LAURUS is wise in this as he is taking it slow. He realizes that moving too fast could cause dissatisfaction. Thus, may God continue to bless him and show prudence and patience for both sides. There needs to be a lot of forgiveness and forget (which I think both sides are doing very well).As for Starlight,Why would we enter communion with the EP? We were never part of his Church, but the Russian Church. Not only that, but communion with the EP would hurt ROCA and would not be favourble to Russian Orthodox Abroad. Sorry, but I don't see your reasoning. Moscow is our mother Church.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

the EP now sees ROCOR as someone who must reconcile with the MP, with the MP being the legit Church body

Well, Ecumenical Patriarchate has not been approached by ROCOR, and therefore obviously they don't want to interject in the process with MP in order not to disturb. The joining of Ecumenical Patriarchate would be more beneficial for ROCOR.

Why would we enter communion with the EP? We were never part of his Church, but the Russian Church. Not only that, but communion with the EP would hurt ROCA and would not be favourable to Russian Orthodox Abroad. Sorry, but I don't see your reasoning. Moscow is our mother Church.

When ROCOR will enter MP, this jurisdiction anyway will become in communion with Ecumenical Patriarchate and other Local Orthodox Churches immediately. Joining EP did not hurt any of the jurisdictions, which have done so. Thanks God, when New Gracanica Metropolia (at that time Free Serbian Orthodox Church) joined Serbian Orthodox Church, this event led to great mutually beneficial results as well.But in the case of MP, the situation is different now due to the problems within MP. Are sure that interests of ROCOR will be taken into consideration?Regarding the benefits to Russian Orthodox Church, would you please look at the broader picture - potential benefits to Orthodox Church overall.

But in the case of MP, the situation is different now due to the problems within MP. Are sure that interests of ROCOR will be taken into consideration?Regarding the benefits to Russian Orthodox Church, would you please look at the broader picture - potential benefits to Orthodox Church overall.

Yes, and everything you are saying would apply exactly to the Ukranians. You're missing the point. It would be ridiculous and against the mandate of St. Tikhon to have ROCOR join with the EP. We are the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, not the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad but Actually partially Greek under the Ecummenical Patriarch." The Synod was meant to be a temporary situation, within the Russian Church and the Russian Church is doing pretty well by itself thank you very much. The EP has done his job by saying it is a matter that belongs to the Russian Church to decide. This is a wise move and the only move. Therefore, let the daughter Churches of Russia be reunited with her mother Church. Not a foreign enity in Constantinople. I am not against the EP and even though I disagree with some of his actions, I still have the highest respect for him. Thus, please don't broaden the picture to much and look at it within its frames. It would harm and do a disservice for Constantinople to get involved in a jurisidictional dispute that is not within his local Church. This would hurt Orthodoxy. Russia belongs to Russia. Constantinople to Constantinople. Let all sides remember that.

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Kind of...but let us not forget what was said, and agreed to by all parties, in Moscow's tome of Autocephaly:

'Moscow is to be numbered with the other patriarchs, and is to rank and be commemorated after the Patriarch of Jerusalem; he is to be obliged to commemorate the name of the Oecumenical Patriarch and the other patriarchs and to hold and regard as his head and primus the Apostolic throne of Constantinople, as do the other patriarchs.' (Regle, W., Analecta Byzantino-Russica, St. Petersburg, 1891. pg. 87)

Let's also not forget that the boarders of the Church of Moscow was restricted to the extend of the Russian Empire AT THE TIME of the Tome; any actions outside these boundaries represents a violation of both the original Charter and the Canons of the Oecumenical Synods. The proper conduct of the Russians outside of Russia would be to follow the example of Metropolitan Evlogius of Paris and the Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe, they can keep their customs and practices but owe their loyalties and alliegances to the Great Church of Christ. Any other conduct is clearly uncanonical and unacceptable unless it has the explicit blessing of the Oecumenical Throne and then is only acceptable so long as it continues to have the blessing of His All-Holiness.

It would be ridiculous and against the mandate of St. Tikhon to have ROCOR join with the EP. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š We are the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, not the "Russian Orthodox Church Abroad but Actually partially Greek under the Ecummenical Patriarch." ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

There lies the contradiction. What is so ridiculous about joining the EP when you yourself said that your church is situated in the Unites States, i.e. "abroad" and not in Russia? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Quote

The EP has done his job by saying it is a matter that belongs to the Russian Church to decide. This is a wise move and the only move.

I agree, but...

Quote

Therefore, let the daughter Churches of Russia be reunited with her mother Church.

Unification is not the only option that the MP and ROCOR can pursue. For instance, the two parties can agree to have the church in exile (ROCOR) be part of the EP so that eventually, all the churches in the US can unite as one church in that part of the world.

Quote

Not a foreign enity in Constantinople. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I wouldn't say that if I belonged to ROCOR. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Geography is actually the weakest argument for the existence of a church outside its motherland. After all, the ROCOR is a "foreign entity" in the US, isn't it? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If it's foreign and only temporary, then the logical alternative is for the foreigners to join the local church.

Quote

It would harm and do a disservice for Constantinople to get involved in a jurisidictional dispute that is not within his local Church. This would hurt Orthodoxy. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

The USA is not local to Russia. People must not isolate the unification of ROCOR and MP as purely a Russian affair because it goes beyond the borders of Moscow. Also, what you seem to be forgetting is the fact that Orthodoxy in America is divided. The decisions of the bishops will have repercussions in the aspirations of many to have a united church in America. These are but two of the reasons why the EP should be part of the talks.

Kind of...but let us not forget what was said, and agreed to by all parties, in Moscow's tome of Autocephaly:

'Moscow is to be numbered with the other patriarchs, and is to rank and be commemorated after the Patriarch of Jerusalem; he is to be obliged to commemorate the name of the Oecumenical Patriarch and the other patriarchs and to hold and regard as his head and primus the Apostolic throne of Constantinople, as do the other patriarchs.' (Regle, W., Analecta Byzantino-Russica, St. Petersburg, 1891. pg. 87)

Let's also not forget that the boarders of the Church of Moscow was restricted to the extend of the Russian Empire AT THE TIME of the Tome; any actions outside these boundaries represents a violation of both the original Charter and the Canons of the Oecumenical Synods. The proper conduct of the Russians outside of Russia would be to follow the example of Metropolitan Evlogius of Paris and the Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe, they can keep their customs and practices but owe their loyalties and alliegances to the Great Church of Christ. Any other conduct is clearly uncanonical and unacceptable unless it has the explicit blessing of the Oecumenical Throne and then is only acceptable so long as it continues to have the blessing of His All-Holiness.

I agree. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The ROCOR is beyond the jurisdication of the MP. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š See my previous post.

T,Basically, I'm just going to end this here. It's lent and I need to hold my tongue because this whole idea is ridiculous and illogical.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2006, 01:29:38 AM by dantxny »

Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen ClarkeI think the French may be on to something here.

Do we have to wait for the "attack" or can we be pre-emptive and just ban Nathanael now? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

For those not "in the know", do some browsing in the e-cafe archives.

*Shudder* I was there for "Brother Nathaniel's" umm threads starting last summer. Thanks to our mods for banning him so quickly. Now that I think of it, I'm a little surprised that he was here sooner. The things he writes are not sensible and his own site is vile with slanderous depictions of EO hierarchs and priests and crudity.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

IMHO, the juristictional situation in the west, like so many other problems in life, will not be resolved by all of the involved parties "insist on their (perceived) rights".

On one hand, the "EP party" has a point with regard to the conditions of Russia's independence from Constantinople. However, it is dubious to the extreme to include the Americas in ancient canons which simply cannot be interpreted as including them without being guilty of the most shameless of anachronisms (EP claim over the Americas.) This is beside the fact that things do change - while the EP became impotent to actually govern much of anything under the Turks (a situation which remains surprisingly unchanged to this day, though the Ottoman Empire is gone), Russia could and did establish real Churches in the Americas, Churches which clearly looked to Moscow as their mother. What some seem to want is to just pretend that never happened, on the basis of rules which were meant to reflect a reality which has long ceased to exist. I have big problems with Imperial fantasies, whether they be those of Byzantine-day-dreamers, or Tsarist romanticists.

Frankly, I think when all foreign parties take a step back and only intervene in a supportive (rather than self serving) capacity, we will see the obscene juristictional mess here in the Americas resolved. Honestly, I think such interference is the biggest impediment to juristictional unity here, not the "ethnics" or anything like this. This is why, while I have problems with certain policies of the Patriarchate of Antioch, I have to give them some credit - their recent move to basically cut the Antiochian Archdiocese loose, was the right thing to do. Everyone in the "old world" should sit down, and mutually recognize the independence of the Church (or perhaps, even "Churches") of the Americas - esp. Constantinople and Moscow. That way, no one has to feel "left out" or demeaned, as sad as it is that such things matter to shepherds of souls.

As for the ROCOR-MP thing, the way things are proceeding is correct. Again, it's simply a fantasy to not perceive those two parties as being the ones who need to reconcile. For ROCOR to run to the EP would not only simply multiply our collective problems (as if we need more!), but would outright ignore reality. If I have a huge falling out with an elder brother (perhaps even for "good" reasons), what on earth would be resolved by me running off and making nice with an estranged even older brother I never even grew up with?

Something to remember... Now this covers Alaska only, not the continental United States. When Russian missionaries came to Alaska, Alaska was still a territory of the Russian Empire. The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867(?), decades after the Russian Orthodox Church established a strong presence in Alaska. Does this foreign relations move between the secular authorities of Russia and the U.S.A. suddenly take the Alaskan Orthodox Church away from Moscow's jurisdiction automatically to the EP's jurisdiction? I really don't think so.

What is the concept of jurisdiction supposed to serve: the Church, or itself? Everything that develops within the Church, even the idea of jurisdiction, is to serve the mystery of the Church, the Mystery of our salvation. When jurisdictionalism seeks to serve itself and not the Church, as I fear it has over the past few centuries with metropolitans and patriarchs asserting their perceived jurisdictional rights, often against each other, then this jurisdictionalism becomes a sin against the Church. The Church is not about who's in charge where; it is about the salvation of sinners.

Let's also not forget that the boarders of the Church of Moscow was restricted to the extend of the Russian Empire AT THE TIME of the Tome; any actions outside these boundaries represents a violation of both the original Charter and the Canons of the Oecumenical Synods. The proper conduct of the Russians outside of Russia would be to follow the example of Metropolitan Evlogius of Paris and the Russian Orthodox Exarchate in Western Europe, they can keep their customs and practices but owe their loyalties and alliegances to the Great Church of Christ. Any other conduct is clearly uncanonical and unacceptable unless it has the explicit blessing of the Oecumenical Throne and then is only acceptable so long as it continues to have the blessing of His All-Holiness.

Uh! A lot of neo-papal patriarchalism here ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Evlogius was a schism-maker. Do you never read the letter of Metropolitan Philaret about the heretics of Paris? Unacceptable are call heretics ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š of "brothers" and remove the anathemas against them.

“Increasing without limit their desires to submit to themselves parts of Russia, the Patriarchs of Constantinople have even begun to declare the uncanonicity of the annexation of Kiev to the Moscow Patriarchate, and to declare that the previously existing southern Russian Metropolia of Kiev should be subject to the Throne of Constantinople. Such a point of view is not only clearly expressed in the Tomos of November 13, 1924, in connection with the separation of the Polish Church, but is also quite thoroughly promoted by the Patriarchs. Thus, the Vicar of Metropolitan Eulogius in Paris, who was consecrated with the permission of the Ecumenical Patriarch, has assumed the title of Chersonese; that is to say, Chersonese, which is now in the territory of Russia, is subject to the Ecumenical Patriarch. The next logical step for the Ecumenical Patriarchate would be to declare the whole of Russia as being under the jurisdiction of ConstantinopleÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦

“In sum, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in theory embracing almost the whole universe, and in fact extending its authority only over several dioceses, and in other places having only a superficial supervision and receiving certain revenues for this; persecuted by the government at home and not supported by any governmental authority abroad; having lost its significance as a pillar of truth and having itself become a source of division, and at the same time being possessed by an exorbitant love of power — represents a pitiful spectacle which recalls the worst periods in the history of the See of Constantinople.”

Something to remember... ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Now this covers Alaska only, not the continental United States. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š When Russian missionaries came to Alaska, Alaska was still a territory of the Russian Empire. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The U.S. purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867(?), decades after the Russian Orthodox Church established a strong presence in Alaska. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Does this foreign relations move between the secular authorities of Russia and the U.S.A. suddenly take the Alaskan Orthodox Church away from Moscow's jurisdiction automatically to the EP's jurisdiction? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I really don't think so.

While you are correct in that ecclesiastical authority does not shrink with the fall of empires, neither does it grow with the growth of a Nation. Moscow was given Jurisdiction over the lands defined by the bounds of Russia in the late sixteenth Century, before Russia acquired Alaska. When the Russian State conquered alaska are we to assume then that the authority of Moscow, independent of any council, expanded to include this area? Of course not, such a notion is inconsonant with both the Canons and customs of the Church. It is you, not I, who here argues that the boundaries of the Church change with the boundaries of nations, I reject that notion and accordingly I reject that Moscow ever had proper authority over Alaska.

Quote

What is the concept of jurisdiction supposed to serve: the Church, or itself? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Everything that develops within the Church, even the idea of jurisdiction, is to serve the mystery of the Church, the Mystery of our salvation. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š When jurisdictionalism seeks to serve itself and not the Church, as I fear it has over the past few centuries with metropolitans and patriarchs asserting their perceived jurisdictional rights, often against each other, then this jurisdictionalism becomes a sin against the Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The Church is not about who's in charge where; it is about the salvation of sinners.

When Churches are unable to follow the established canons and protocols, yes problems arise, and Constantinople has insisted on no right that is not either explicitly granted in the Canons or firmly established in the Traditions of the Christian Church.

And who are a saint for him? Athenagoras? Or Meletius? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

I respect Meletius as a great patriarch, perhaps a saintly man but more after the likes of Sts. Constantine and Justinian than other more spiritual men. However, in regard to Patriarch Athenagoras, I most certainly believe him to be a saintly man, perhaps the greatest Orthodox Hierarch of the 20th Century. Yet, I will call neither of them Saints as that is for the Patriarchate to decide.

While you are correct in that ecclesiastical authority does not shrink with the fall of empires, neither does it grow with the growth of a Nation. Moscow was given Jurisdiction over the lands defined by the bounds of Russia in the late sixteenth Century, before Russia acquired Alaska. When the Russian State conquered alaska are we to assume then that the authority of Moscow, independent of any council, expanded to include this area? Of course not, such a notion is inconsonant with both the Canons and customs of the Church. It is you, not I, who here argues that the boundaries of the Church change with the boundaries of nations, I reject that notion and accordingly I reject that Moscow ever had proper authority over Alaska.

When Churches are unable to follow the established canons and protocols, yes problems arise, and Constantinople has insisted on no right that is not either explicitly granted in the Canons or firmly established in the Traditions of the Christian Church.

So you see the Orthodox Church as a mere institution founded on human models of juridical authority and the rule of the letter of the law, an institution that has the Pope of Constantinople as its head. For being Orthodox you certainly have a Latin view of the Church.

LOL, you beat me to it, so I wont elaborate too much...except to say that when refering to person in question I may not use the term 'saint' but another 's' word does come to mind

I respect Meletius as a great patriarch, perhaps a saintly man but more after the likes of Sts. Constantine and Justinian than other more spiritual men. However, in regard to Patriarch Athenagoras, I most certainly believe him to be a saintly man, perhaps the greatest Orthodox Hierarch of the 20th Century. Yet, I will call neither of them Saints as that is for the Patriarchate to decide.

Great patriarch? A freemasson who was partisan of renovationists? A great patriarch who was the toy of Venizelos?

And Athenagoras: a saintly man who calls the roman catholic heretics of brothers, and left the anathemas against the heretical romanist church?

So you see the Orthodox Church as a mere institution founded on human models of juridical authority and the rule of the letter of the law, an institution that has the Pope of Constantinople as its head. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For being Orthodox you certainly have a Latin view of the Church.

I agree with you brother. This guy is a new latinizer, a Barlaam of Calabria of our times.

So you see the Orthodox Church as a mere institution founded on human models of juridical authority and the rule of the letter of the law, an institution that has the Pope of Constantinople as its head. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š For being Orthodox you certainly have a Latin view of the Church.

These rules and laws you seem to hate so much were designed to maintain order in the Church, otherwise we would have ended up like the protestants by now. The structure of the Church that I propose isn't some theoretical Ideal but is actually how the polity of the Church has been since Chalcedon. I dont have a 'latin' view of the Church, I have a view of the Church that is actually consonant with the History of the Orthodox Church. How much have you actually studied the history of the polity of the Church? Because if you do study it, you will actually find that Constantinople is far more powerful and authoritative than I have ever tried to maker her out to be. In many ways, over the last thousand years Constantinople has actually exerted a level of authority and influence within the very cities of the ancient patriarchates that far exceedes the actual influence and authority that Rome was able to exert in many places directly within her Patriarchate. I would strongly suggest that you become familiar with the history of orthodox ecclesiology before you start telling me that my ecclesiology is inconsonant with it.

Great patriarch? A freemasson who was partisan of renovationists? A great patriarch who was the toy of Venizelos?

He helped modernize parts of the Church, something that was LONG overdue.

Quote

And Athenagoras: a saintly man who calls the roman catholic heretics of brothers, and left the anathemas against the heretical romanist church?

He helped begin the healing process in hope that we may end the schism that is between us and once again restore the ancient communion between us and our western brethren. It was his act of removing the anathemas and taking that step towards restoration of communion that makes him such a great man.

I agree with you brother. This guy is a new latinizer, a Barlaam of Calabria of our times.

You dont seem to have too good of a grasp of Orthodox Church history either, may I recommend Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis' The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, it's available in both Greek and English and is an excellent and highly academic work on the relationship of Constantinople to the Rest of the Church. If you have any questions about his quotes or references the book is very well documented and all such thins are well cited.

These rules and laws you seem to hate so much were designed to maintain order in the Church, otherwise we would have ended up like the protestants by now. The structure of the Church that I propose isn't some theoretical Ideal but is actually how the polity of the Church has been since Chalcedon. I dont have a 'latin' view of the Church, I have a view of the Church that is actually consonant with the History of the Orthodox Church. How much have you actually studied the history of the polity of the Church? Because if you do study it, you will actually find that Constantinople is far more powerful and authoritative than I have ever tried to maker her out to be.

Yes, far too powerful and authoritative.

Quote

In many ways, over the last thousand years Constantinople has actually exerted a level of authority and influence within the very cities of the ancient patriarchates that far exceedes the actual influence and authority that Rome was able to exert in many places directly within her Patriarchate.

Since you like to quote the canons so much, isn't there a canon that forbids bishops to interfere in the affairs of churches outside of their own diocese or province?

Quote

I would strongly suggest that you become familiar with the history of orthodox ecclesiology before you start telling me that my ecclesiology is inconsonant with it.

Do you have any idea how much I've read on Orthodox ecclesiology? I suppose not. Please don't assume that I'm not well versed on this issue. Of course, I'm not that well-read on Constantinopolitan propaganda, simply because it just doesn't fit the ecclesiology of those outside of the EP's jurisdiction who don't attach the juridical importance to Constantinople that you do.

Since you like to quote the canons so much, isn't there a canon that forbids bishops to interfere in the affairs of churches outside of their own diocese or province?

And that canon was not violated, it is the Synod of Constantinople, not any individual bishop, that exerted this authority. Since he Council of Chalcedon the Synod of Constantinople has, on many occasions, both deposed and installed Patriarchs of the other Sees. Even today, when the Patriarch of Jerusalem was deposed it was the Synod of Constantinople, not the Synod of Jerusalem, that had the final say.

Quote

Do you have any idea how much I've read on Orthodox ecclesiology? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I suppose not. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Please don't assume that I'm not well versed on this issue. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Of course, I'm not that well-read on Constantinopolitan propaganda, simply because it just doesn't fit the ecclesiology of those outside of the EP's jurisdiction who don't attach the juridical importance to Constantinople that you do.

I really dont think it is possible to study the history of any patriarchate without seeing the influence and authority of Constantinople. Furthermore, I hope you read the actual history and not just the idealistic ramblings of Meyendorff and Schmemann, whose ecclesiology has little basis in any thing that has actually existed in the History of the Orthodox Church.

At one time, Rome was the foremost of churches, greater in prestige and authority than Constantinople. Yet when Rome and all those in her jurisdiction fell into heresy, Orthodoxy survived and continued to grow. If, God forbid, Constantinople should fall into heresy--exalted claims to universal authority are one of the heresies against the doctrine of the Church that continue to separate Rome from the Orthodox--then Orthodoxy will survive and continue to grow even without Constantinople and all those in her jurisdiction. If the Mystery of Salvation is ultimately not of this world, then it is not dependent on any particular patriarchal see, even if that see be the ancient see of Constantinople.

At one time, Rome was the foremost of churches, greater in prestige and authority than Constantinople.

Perhaps greater in prestige, but since Chalcedon not in authority; for she was not graced by the presence of the Imperial Senate and our God-ordained Emperors.

Quote

Yet when Rome and all those in her jurisdiction fell into heresy, Orthodoxy survived and continued to grow. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If, God forbid, Constantinople should fall into heresy--exalted claims to universal authority are one of the heresies against the doctrine of the Church that continue to separate Rome from the Orthodox--then Orthodoxy will survive and continue to grow even without Constantinople and all those in her jurisdiction. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š If the Mystery of Salvation is ultimately not of this world, then it is not dependent on any particular patriarchal see, even if that see be the ancient see of Constantinople.

It should be remembered that the break was first between Rome and Constantinople and all the rest of the Church, in time, followed the Imperial See, which is the standard of Christendom.

He helped modernize parts of the Church, something that was LONG overdue.

You are a joker? The Church don't need "modernize" your parts. The Orthodox Church hold the Apostolic Tradition without change anything.

Quote

He helped begin the healing process in hope that we may end the schism that is between us and once again restore the ancient communion between us and our western brethren. It was his act of removing the anathemas and taking that step towards restoration of communion that makes him such a great man.

What schism? The romanists are hereticals. They left the Church, so a schism between us and them dont exist. Restoration of communion with hereticals? Do you want have communion with heretics?

Quote

You dont seem to have too good of a grasp of Orthodox Church history either, may I recommend Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis' The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, it's available in both Greek and English and is an excellent and highly academic work on the relationship of Constantinople to the Rest of the Church. If you have any questions about his quotes or references the book is very well documented and all such thins are well cited.

Another neo-papalism propaganda? No, thanks. Drink yourself this cup of western influation.

Do you never read the letter of Metropolitan Philaret about the heretics of Paris?

Who are the "heretics of Paris"? Calling other Orthodox Christians (i.e., Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Marie Skobstova(sic?)) heretics in a public forum such as this is probably a good way to get many here to really dislike you. There are many ROCOR posters here and maybe even a few ROAC people who will agree with you regarding the "Evlogian Schism," but many of us are more "modern" in our viewpoints and will find your approach rather incendiary and alienating, especially so the OCAer's like myself. So please be careful.

Probably because they read this letter. And if that letter is indeed authentic*, it would give a very different color to Met. Philaret than one normally gets from his public statements (though it would remain only the private opinion of one bishop, nothing more).

*I'm not sure where HOCNA got the letter (it was published in their book on ecumenism), and- I would definately want to know about their source before believing fully that the letter was authentic.

Who are the "heretics of Paris"? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Calling other Orthodox Christians (i.e., Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Marie Skobstova(sic?)) heretics in a public forum such as this is probably a good way to get many here to really dislike you.

There is no doubts about some members of parisian institute are heretical. Some like Bulgakov and others sophiologists. Im not acusing all of them of heretics, but is very clear that the parisian institute was a garden of hereticals.

To at least try to say something vaguely related to the original topic, does anyone here have a link to the schedule/agenda/activities/etc. [IN ENGLISH please]of the upcoming All-Diaspora conference in SF in May for ROCOR? Thanks.